me audubon tu-mdif&w bkt survey project (ponds)

MAINEAUDUBON / TU / IFW

VOLUNTEER “REMOTE POND SURVEY PROJECT”

(PROTECTING WHAT IS FOUND)

THE DATA USED IN THIS ANALYSIS WAS OBTAINED FROM IFW. IT COMES FROM

ANNUAL SUMMARY REPORTS SENT FROM AUDUBON TO IFW AND IFW TO AUDUBON.

OVERVIEW…

THE JOINT AUDUBON/TU/IFW “REMOTE POND SURVEY PROJECT” UTILIZES VOLUNTEERS TO SURVEY PREVIOUSLY UNSURVEYED PONDS. THE GOAL OF THE PROJECT AS STATED IS TO HELP “IDENTIFY AND PROTECT” PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN POPULATIONS OF BROOK TROUT…

BROOK TROUT FOUND IN PREVIOUSLY UNSURVEYED PONDS ARE BY DEFAULT SELF-SUSTAINING, NATIVE AND MOST LIKELY GENETICALLY PURE. IF THEY HAD BEEN INTRODUCED OR STOCKED OVER IN THE PAST IFW WOULD ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THEM…

SINCE 2011 VOLUNTEERS HAVE SURVEYED ROUGHLY 375 PONDS. BROOK TROUT WERE CAUGHT IN APPROXIMATELY 80 WATERS AND DEEMED “LIKELY PRESENT” IN ANOTHER ROUGHLY 60 WATERS…

SINCE 2012 IFW HAS CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF BROOK TROUT IN ROUGHLY 58 PONDS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED BY THE VOLUNTEERS…

ONE OF THE STATED GOALS OF THE PROJECT IS TO ADD THESE PONDS TO THE “HERITAGE LIST” SO THEY WILL BE AFFORDED THE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED UNDER THE HERITAGE FISH LAW--NO STOCKING AND NO LIVE FISH AS BAIT.

THE HERITAGE FISH LAW IS MAINE’S ONLY FORMAL AND LEGALLY BINDING, PROGRAM FOR PROTECTING SELF-SUSTAINING NATIVE FISH. ANYTHING ELSE MUST BE NEGOTIATED ON A WATER-BY-WATER BASIS, AND IS NOT GUARANTEED TO SURVIVE FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT.

THE RULES FOR CREATING THE ORIGINAL HERITAGE LIST WERE QUITE CLEAR…§212-A. State heritage fish

1. Eastern Brook Trout. The eastern brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, is a state heritage fish.

§12461. State heritage fish waters

1. Adoption of state heritage fish waters. The commissioner shall adopt by rule a list of state heritage fish waters composed of lakes and ponds that contain state heritage fish, as defined in Title 1, section 212-A. This list must include waters identified as eastern brook trout waters and arctic charr waters that have never been stocked according to any reliable records authorized for adoption by Resolve 2005, chapter 172, as amended, and waters identified as eastern brook trout waters and arctic charr waters that according to reliable records have not been stocked for at least 25 years.

LIKEWISE, THE PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY THE HERITAGE LAW WERE QUITE CLEAR…§12461. State heritage fish waters

4. Stocking state heritage fish. The commissioner may not stock or issue a permit to stock fish in a lake or pond listed as a state heritage fish water under this section.

5. Fishing restrictions. A person may not use live fish as bait or possess live fish to be used as bait on a lake or pond listed as a state heritage fish water under this section. A person who violates this subsection commits a Class E crime.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE RULES FOR ADDING WATERS TO THE HERITAGE LIST AFTER THE FACT ARE NOT SO CLEAR…§12461. State heritage fish waters

2. Addition of waters to list. The commissioner may adopt rules to amend the list established under subsection 1 to add a lake or pond if that lake or pond meets criteria established by the commissioner for classifying a lake or pond as a state heritage fish water.

PER IFW, THE RULES FOR ADDING WATERS TO THE HERITAGE LIST ARE AS FOLLOWS. WHILE #3 RAISES SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS, #6 IS ESPECIALLY CONCERNING…1. Has to be a lake or pond2. Cannot be stocked within the last 25 years inter/intra specific

stocking3. Must be a Principal Fishery4. Waters need to support all life stages 5. Cannot be a water planned for a restoration project6. Social concerns

ACCORDING TO IFW…

“A LAKE OR POND IS DEEMED TO HAVE A PRINCIPAL FISHERY IF THE SPECIES IS REGULARLY SOUGHT AFTER BY ANGLERS AND MAKES UP A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR CATCH.”

WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT BY DEFINITION THE SURVEY PONDS ARE RELATIVELY UNKNOWN, THE BROOK TROUT IN THEM ARE BY DEFAULT NOT “REGULARLY SOUGHT AFTER”…

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC REASON WHY THE RULES FOR ADDING NEWLY DISCOVERED WATERS TO THE HERITAGE LIST SHOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE USED TO ADD WATERS TO THE ORIGINAL LIST…

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS…

THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT…

16

9

ADDED TO HERITAGE NOT ADDED TO HERITAGE

BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(2012 – NUM)

64%

36%


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(2012 – PCT)

NOTE: FOUR LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS HAVE PASSED SINCE 2012

1815


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(2012-2013 – NUM)

55%45%


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(2012-2013 – PCT)

NOTE: THREE LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS HAVE PASSED SINCE 2013

2127


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(2012-2014 – NUM)

44%56%


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(2012-2014 – PCT)

NOTE: TWO LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS HAVE PASSED SINCE 2014

21

37


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(2012-2015 - NUM)

36%

64%


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(2012-2015 - PCT)

RESULTS BY YEAR…

A DOWNWARD TREND…

16

9



64%

36%



2

6



25%

75%



3

12



20%

80%



9



100%



THE FACT THAT ANY WATERS WERE ADDED TO THE HERITAGE LIST IN A GIVEN YEAR IS AN INDICATION THAT ALL WATERS COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE LIST IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR…

RESULTS BY REGION…

A LACK OF CONSISTENCY…

12

4

6

3 1 2012201320142015UNKNOWN

REGION D (26)

BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW

121

4

22012201320142015

REGION E (19)

1

34

12012201320142015

REGION F (9)

1

3

2012201320142015

REGION G (4)

1012


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(REGION D – NUM)

NOTE: INCLUDES 2012–2014 ONLY TO ALLOW TIME FOR PROCESSING

45%55%


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(REGION D – PCT)

11

6


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(REGION E – NUM)


65%

35%


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(REGION E – PCT)

8


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(REGION F – NUM)


100%


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(REGION F – PCT)

1


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(REGION G – NUM)


100%


BKT CONFIRMED BY IFW(REGION G – PCT)

STATUS…

18

16

1 2

CLOSED TO BE RE-EVALUATED

UNDER CONSIDERATION TO BE PROPOSED

LEFT OFF HERITAGE LIST (BY STATUS - NUM)

49%

43%

3%5%

CLOSED TO BE RE-EVALUATED

UNDER CONSIDERATION TO BE PROPOSED

LEFT OFF HERITAGE LIST(BY STATUS - PCT)

• FOUR WATERS CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AS “TO BE RE-EVALUATED” WERE ORIGINALLY SURVEYED IN 2012. THREE OTHERS WERE SURVEYED IN 2013.

• THE WATER LISTED AS “UNDER CONSIDERATION” WAS SURVEYED IN 2013.

• ONLY TWO WATERS ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR HERITAGE LIST INCLUSION AT THIS TIME.

REASONS…

2

2

10

3

1

LOW ABUNDANCE OF FISHMARGINAL HABITATNOT A PONDNOT A PRINCIPAL FISHERYPRIVATE POND

LEFT OFF HERITAGE LIST (CLOSED BY REASON - NUM)

11%

11%

55%

17%

6%

LOW ABUNDANCE OF FISHMARGINAL HABITATNOT A PONDNOT A PRINCIPAL FISHERYPRIVATE POND

LEFT OFF HERITAGE LIST(CLOSED BY REASON - PCT)

• IN MOST CASES IFW PROVIDED MULTIPLE REASONS FOR LEAVING A GIVEN WATER OFF THE HERITAGE LIST. I CHOSE THE ONE THAT WAS MOST DEFINITIVE.

• ALL WATERS EXCEPT ONE OMITTED AS “NOT A POND” HAVE A WATCODE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. WATCODES ARE ASSIGNED TO “LAKES AND PONDS” ONLY PER IFW.

AN UNDERLYING PROBLEM…

3

9

15

3

7

PRINCIPAL FISHERYNOT A PRINCIPAL FISHERYPRINCIPAL FISHERY QUESTIONABLENO FISHERY/NO POTENTIAL FISHERYNO MENTION

PRINCIPAL FISHERY (STATUS - NUM)

8%

24%

41%

8%

19%

PRINCIPAL FISHERYNOT A PRINCIPAL FISHERYPRINCIPAL FISHERY QUESTIONABLENO FISHERY/NO POTENTIAL FISHERYNO MENTION

PRINCIPAL FISHERY(STATUS - PCT)

CONCLUSIONS…

…ROUGHLY 37 PONDS IDENTIFIED BY VOLUNTEERS AND CONFIRMED BY IFW TO CONTAIN BROOK TROUT WHICH ARE BY DEFAULT SELF-SUSTAINING, NATIVE AND MOST LIKELY GENETICALLY PURE HAVE NOT BEEN ADDED TO THE HERITAGE LIST AND THEREFORE REMAIN UNPROTECTED.

…APPROXIMATELY 27 OF THE PONDS LEFT OFF THE HERITAGE LIST WERE CONFIRMED TO CONTAIN BROOK TROUT BY IFW BETWEEN 2012 AND 2014 ALLOWING ADEQUATE TIME TO GET THEM THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

…ONE POND (MIDAS #4218) CONFIRMED TO CONTAIN BROOK TROUT BY IFW IN 2015 WAS RECENTLY PROPOSED FOR HERITAGE DESIGNATION CONFIRMING THAT THIS IS NOT A “TIMING” PROBLEM.

…ROUGHLY 9 PONDS CONFIRMED TO CONTAIN BROOK TROUT BY IFW IN 2012 HAVE YET TO BE ADDED TO THE HERITAGE LIST AND AS SUCH HAVE BEEN LEFT UNPROTECTED FOR FOUR YEARS.

…WHILE REGION “F” CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF BROOK TROUT IN 8 PONDS BETWEEN 2012 AND 2014 IT HAS YET TO ADD A WATER TO THE HERITAGE LIST.

NOTE: REGION F RECENTLY PROPOSED LISTING TWO SURVEY WATERS.

…THERE IS A LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN REGARD TO WHAT PONDS ARE AND ARE NOT ADDED TO THE HERITAGE LIST IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.

…TWO PONDS CLASSIFIED AS “BROOK TROUT POSSIBLE” AND “BROOK TROUT UNLIKELY” BY VOLUNTEERS WERE CONFIRMED TO CONTAIN BROOK TROUT BY IFW IN 2015. THIS SUGGESTS THAT THE SURVEY TECHNIQUES NEED TO BE LOOKED AT OR WE RISK LEAVING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS OF WILD BROOK TROUT UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPROTECTED.

…THE PROJECT WAS DESIGNED SO AS NOT TO PROVIDE ANY “FALSE POSITIVES”. WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHAT IS AT RISK, SELF-SUSTAINING BROOK TROUT, A POSITION OF NO “FALSE NEGATIVES” WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PRUDENT. THE CURRENT STRATEGY PLACES A HIGHER VALUE ON IFW RESOURCE TIME THAN IT DOES BROOK TROUT.

…PRIOR TO BEING SURVEYED THESE PONDS WERE PROTECTED SOLELY THROUGH “ANONYMITY”. THEY ARE NOW KNOWN BY BOTH THE VOLUNTEER(S) AND IFW SURVEY CREW. IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT SOMEONE HAS TOLD SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT THEM (WHO MAY IN TURN HAVE TOLD SOMEONE…). AS A RESULT PONDS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDED TO THE HERITAGE LIST ARE IN FACT MORE AT-RISK NOW THAN THEY WERE BEFORE THEY WERE SURVEYED.

…MOST OF THE PONDS SURVEYED ARE LOCATED IN THE “NORTHERN & WESTERN COUNTIES”. THEY ARE NOT IN THE IFW FISHING RULE BOOK AND ARE BY DEFAULT CLOSED TO ICE-FISHING. AS A RESULT PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO THEM BEING ADDED TO HERITAGE LIST WOULD BE MINIMAL OR NON-EXISTENT…

EFFORTS TO GET THE SURVEY WATERS ADDED TO THE HERITAGE LIST AND PROVIDED WITH THE “PROTECTION” PROMISED TO THE VOLUNTEERS ARE NOT WORKING. A CHANGE OF STRATEGY IS NOT ONLY WARRANTED IT IS NECESSARY…

RECOMMENDATIONS…

SHORT-TERM…

THE IFW COMMISSIONER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ADD THESE SMALL (MOST ARE LESS THAN 20 ACRES) SELF-SUSTAINING, NATIVE AND MOST LIKELY GENETICALLY PURE POPULATIONS OF BROOK TROUT TO THE HERITAGE LIST:

The commissioner may adopt rules to amend the list established under subsection 1 to add a lake or pond if that lake or pond meets criteria established by the commissioner for classifying a lake or pond as a state heritage fish water.

COMMISSIONER WOODCOCK SHOULD BE ASKED TO USE HIS AUTHORITY TO PROTECT THE WATERS THAT AUDUBON, TU, IFW AND THE VOLUNTEERS HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO IDENTIFY UNDER A LAW THAT HE HELPED PASS WHILE A STATE SENATOR.

LONG-TERM…

THE HERITAGE FISH LAW NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO MAKE THE RULES FOR ADDING NEW WATERS TO THE HERITAGE LIST THE SAME AS THOSE USED TO ESTABLISH THE ORIGINAL LIST:

§12461. State heritage fish waters

2. Addition of waters to list. The commissioner must adopt rules to amend the list established under subsection 1 to add a lake or pond if that lake or pond has been identified as an eastern brook trout water or an arctic charr water that has never been stocked according to any reliable records authorized for adoption by Resolve 2005, chapter 172, as amended, or a water identified as an eastern brook trout water or arctic charr water that according to reliable records has not been stocked for at least 25 years.

THE VOLUNTEERS DESERVE CLOSURE…

AUDUBON/TU/IFW OWES THEM CLOSURE…

THE WILD BROOK TROUT NEED CLOSURE…

me audubon tu-mdif&w bkt survey project (ponds)

Environment